Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
Over the next decade — if the current-law sequester cuts and spending caps hold — US defense spending will fall to EU-like levels. That is certainly too low if the US is to remain a global military superpower as opposed to becoming a “regional hegemon” in the words of my friends at the Heritage Foundation. (The Obama White House might well prefer this trajectory but would rather the “peace dividend” be used to finance government rather than lower budget deficits.)
OK, we don’t want that. But that will be then. This is now. And given budget realities, the sequester should immediately force Obama’s Pentagon, argues AEI’s Mackenzie Eaglen, “to confront the primary drivers of imbalanced defense spending, including military and civilian bureaucratic overhead, excess infrastructure, and runaway compensation costs.” I would also add in the $70 billion in Pentagon nondefense-related spending identified by Senator Tom Coburn.
Eaglen offers several recommendations:
1. When trying to slash excess overhead and infrastructure, Pentagon leaders should aim to shrink the bureaucracy while preserving core military capabilities. To do this, they need to begin collecting better information internally. The Pentagon does not currently assess the most affordable mix of military, civilian and contractors in its employment.
2. The department must develop tools to effectively match supply and demand for internal labor in order to understand which jobs may be eliminated and which competencies need additional staffing. Without these simple tools at its disposal, it is not surprising the Pentagon has thus far been unable to size the workforce correctly.
3. Efforts to close additional bases have been unsuccessful. One proposal of note by a senior Air Force official, for example, is for the Pentagon to select installations for closure based on the community’s interest in conversion and their ability to thrive in commercial redevelopment.
In other words, the Pentagon needs to bring in a) some business rationality and b) Big Data.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
May '11
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
I don't know why it would scare anyone. Isn't this the kind of budget cut we should be in favor of, except that it is too small?
And having been subjected to layoffs in the non-government realm at no fault of my own, I see no reason why government workers should be immune from layoffs.
Edited on February 28, 2013 at 8:06pmNov '11
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
I still don't get why percentage of GDP is the proper way to measure defense spending as compared to history.
I mean, between countries at the same date in time, it makes sense, but measured against history within one country, it doesn't make sense.
Jun '12
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
Sen Coburn is...ahem...full of it. The idea that the reason the Pentagon hasn't cut bureaucratic overhead is because it lacks sufficient information to do so is, well, silly. The military has no problem cutting fighter wings and tank divisions at the drop of a hat. As Skyler noted, however, GS employees are sacrosanct. If Sen Coburn is truly serious about cutting DoD overhead then he should forward a by position number list of civilian jobs he's willing to let go of in his own district.
Saying the problem "needs to be studied" is bureau-speak for "not on my watch."
Sep '10
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
Assuming that the graph includes all spending (not excluding 'off budget' items, part of the decline is subsumed by a winding down of Iraqi and Afghan wars. In that sense, the graph exaggerates the decline. A more meaningful picture would be spending exclusive of wars.
To Mr Cole's point, one might expect the cost of this good (defense) to decrease with time, as has the cost of other goods over long periods. As we become wealthier, the economy contains new goods and services, thereby decreasing the proportion taken by each. Compare various measures of prices and value at measuringworth.
A more meaningful comparison is to the amount spent by others and the context of the threat. In a world of asymmetric warfare, the monetary measure is not as useful. Consider how cheap it was to carry out the 9-11 attacks compared to how much it cost us to respond. I have little doubt that the emergence of a credible threat will result in increased spending. The only issue is, will this realization occur in time?
Edit for issues cause by the mobile site. Arghhhhh!
Edited on February 28, 2013 at 9:55pmSep '10
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
You'll have to prove to me that 2.41% of GDP puts us at European levels.
Jun '12
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
OK: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
France = 2.6%
Sep '10
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
FloppyDisk90
OK: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html
France = 2.6% · 1 hour ago
This list shows the problem with using percent of GDP as a criterion. Among the top 10 are such military powerhouses as Eritrea and Macedonia. The Maldives is #13 while the US is #23. Pretty scary!
France may spend 2.6% of GDP on the military, but their GDP is much smaller. Other European countries spend less (Germany, 1.5%). The Eurozone total will end up smaller than suggested by the misleading French statistic, much as the 6.3% spent by Eritrea is not meaningful.
Jun '12
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
The statistic is just fine. It measures how much, relative to output, that a country spends on defense. You are imputing other values on it like "should" and "military power." Of course, it measures neither of those things.
The US has a large economy. So large, in fact, that 2.41% of our economy is pretty much bigger then whatever else the rest of the world spends combined (not quite, but it's up there). I'm all for cutting defense spending, but as I noted above, the military inevitably ends up cutting muscle and letting the blood sucking GS employees hang on because they have a union and a voting bloc. We can have all sorts of academic debates about how much should be spent on defense in either absolute or relative terms but when the balloon goes up in N. Korea or Iran pray hard we made the right decisions.
Jun '12
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
"I have little doubt that the emergence of a credible threat will result in increased spending. The only issue is, will this realization occur in time?"
And the cost of that realization lag is measured directly by body bags of 18 year olds.
Dec '10
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
You're dreaming if you thing government will ever cut, and really dreaming if you think it they will do it in a responsible way.
Sep '10
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
FloppyDisk90: "I have little doubt that the emergence of a credible threat will result in increased spending. The only issue is, will this realization occur in time?"
And the cost of that realization lag is measured directly by body bags of 18 year olds.
No argument there. I'm not trivializing the problem. There are many costs associated with bad government; soldiers are not the only casualties, though perhaps the most unjust.
My point was simply that defense spending will rise when needed, as you can see by inspection of the graph. There are some prodigious spikes and several broad humps in response to the demands of the moment. Rather, my concern is that there may not be time enough to meet a future threat if defense is cut too deeply. I wonder if the response time needs to be shorter now than it was in the past.
Sep '10
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
FloppyDisk90:
The US has a large economy. So large, in fact, that 2.41% of our economy is pretty much bigger then whatever else the rest of the world spends combined (not quite, but it's up there). I'm all for cutting defense spending, but as I noted above, the military inevitably ends up cutting muscle and letting the blood sucking GS employees hang on because they have a union and a voting bloc.
No disagreement here either, except this: France is not a surrogate for Europe. Germany has a bigger economy yet a smaller percent of GDP devoted to defense. If you add all the Eurozone spending, it will come out to considerably less than 2.4% of Eurozone GDP. Your statistic was in response to the comment, "You'll have to prove to me that 2.41% of GDP puts us at European levels." Well, 2.6% is the wrong number to compare. France's 2.6% is more akin to Eritrea's 6.3%: bigger but largely irrelevant. How about China? More of a worry.
Yes, about the bloodsuckers. It's a sad reality that cuts are targeted this way. What's to do about it?
Sep '10
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
@#7Yup, you got it.
Jan '11
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
Defense is bloated just like everything else is. It should not be spared. But this is all just small potatoes, anyway; entitlement cuts - hopefully in the form of a substantial raise in the eligibility age - are drastically needed.
Feb '12
Re: Why the Sequester's Defense Cuts are Scaring Me Less and Less
I am definitely not afraid. Hopefully real cuts will take place next. Not just a small reduction in the rate of growth. And close all the departments that simply duplicate what another department is doing in Washington.
Tackle entitlements and lets get some serious spending problems dealt with. That will scare everyone when they get a little less and pay a little more. But it must be done. Soon. I'm ready and willing.